alonso's car wasn't damaged so he had an advantage on kimi almost all the weekendEmerson.F wrote:He did have quite a bump on T4. I feel bad for Kimi and Fred with that Ferrari.lebesset wrote:seems that kimi was driving a damaged car almost througout the weekend after hitting the kerb [ that was later removed ?] in FP1 and ferrari didn't detect all the damage ; must have been quite bad for them to stop their tests today
looks like it will take a miracle for kimi to get a bit of luck
Ps: for all the bickering going on upstairs
truth of the matter is that on the same strategy he needs to stay ahead of hamilton to have a chance of beating him , and he knows it ; hence the alternative strategy ; last year the DRS might have done it with the faster car , but with the improvement in acceleration it is no longer the caseiotar__ wrote:No, it wasn't the best chance to beat Hamilton, again he had his best chance when he was on the same tyre strategy towards the end of first stint - that's a fact not speculation, he closed the gap and had an attempt. Why would there be a gap of 2-3 seconds after first stint, outlap that faster? Even if that's the case what counts is speed over the whole stint + DRS + better tyres towards the end of the stint - just like it was the case before the first pitstop. Plus some fuel saving advantage(?).
OK let's say Rosberg is driving for Red Bull, no full freedom of strategy (they can't come in together) everything else the same, he's quicker, he was in the first stint, despite saving fuel and 2 more laps, agreed? Would they ever go for a strategy when he loses contact until five laps (7-10?) before the end when cars are lighter and DRS is less efficient (is this still the case in 2014?)? I don't see it ever happening.
If strategies are similar there are opportunities before, during and after pitstop (twice), outlap, inlap, advantage towards the end of the stint - especially on a two-stopper with some tyre advantage, mistake in the pitstop, driver mistake, pressure, affecting Hamilton's pace all the time. Instead 4 laps into the race they start running different strategies with similar overall speed and some unspecified tyre advantage in the last 5-7 laps.
Why the assumption that leading driver gets some better strategy call? Unless they want to come at the same time, what's the problem, assuming they let them race and not pretend to? Fine he pits next lap, is close enough if really faster over the whole stint, repeat of situation from the first pitstop.
Edit: one more option, some overtaking (like Perez - Hulkenberg for example), lapping of slower cars involved, it happened before (Alonso, Vettel) - another opportunity compared to "alternative" strategy,
This I can agree with. I think this year ERS can negate DRS if used properly on some tracks.lebesset wrote: last year the DRS might have done it with the faster car , but with the improvement in acceleration it is no longer the case
The alternative strategy wasn't a bad call in itself, it's execution was a bit lacking however imo.Phil wrote:Stradivarius,
Where do you conclude that, and I quote - "To do this, he would have needed to catch Hamilton by almost 0.7 s per lap. The tires would only give him around 0.3 s per lap. So Rosberg would have had to make up an extra 0.4 seconds per lap himself." - that the tires would only give him around 0.3 sec per lap? Everything I've seen points to the fact that they were significantly quicker. If you are concluding 0.3.sec per lap by comparing their 2nd stint (Ham on softs, Ros on meds), I think this not quite correct, as both were on different strategies - one driver (Ros) getting most out of the mediums and the other (Ham) trying to prolong the life of his tyres to keep his last stint short. The 0.3sec you see that made Hamilton go from ~6sec to ~9.5sec was due to that compromise at the fuel load / weight of the car. I think it's safe to say that on a lighter car with less than 15 laps to go and no fuel saving, that the pace difference between tyres would be quite significantly larger than what we witnessed in the middle stint.
I also disagree with the notion that the 'quickest strategy using 1 tire' is to do 3 equally long stints. The car is the heaviest at the start and the lightest at the end. Because of this, the latteral force and strain on the tyres is proportionally higher at the beginning of the race than it is at the end. The quickest strategy therefore would be varying lengths of stint - perhaps 15, 19, 23 (just making an educated guess here). Fuel level would change these numbers slightly if the driver is 'fuel saving / coasting and lifting' at the beginning but 'on it' at the end of it. This also doesn't cover the 'rubbering in' of the track, but that would only support the thesis that the stints can potentially become longer towards the end (less strain on the tires).
Coming back to strategy - yes, Rosberg did lose 5-6 seconds by pitting 2 laps later. The question is however, was that entirely due to his tires reaching the "cliff" or did he perhaps make a driver error as well? And when exactly were those 5-6 seconds messured? After Rosberg completed his outlap or before? I'm asking because the mediums were likely the harder tyre to get up to temperature - so an outlap would be slower than Hamilton's one. If there was no safety car and Hamilton would need to do an outlap on mediums as well (not under safety-car), he would have had the same disadvantage of having to switch on his tyres. This was effectively nullfied given the safety-car situation and he had a few laps to put heat into them. I would think the 5-6 seconds you are seeing here are slightly exaggerated for this reason.
Given the radio call on lap 7 where Tony Ross told Nico to remember he was on an alternative strategy makes me assume he was always going to pit those 2 laps later - and go for a middle stint on medium tyres. This was also before Rosberg battled with Hamilton for pit-stop-priority and position, so at that point, the team didn't know how close the fight might end up. So I really don't think the strategy was 'split' to avoid battling.
I do think that had Rosberg opted to go for softs in his second stint, perhaps a lap later (as you are suggesting) that the gap would still be at 2-3 seconds. Rosberg would then need to make up that time on equal tires and attempt a pass. Not being able to successfully pull this off, would effectively mean that Hamilton - again - would get priority on last stint pitstop, pulling ahead again. Rosberg might have been quicker in the opening stint on used softs (remember; tyres from Q2), so it's not absolute certainty that he would be as much quicker on new softs (hypothetical 2nd stint) and quicker on mediums on the last stint (hypothetical 3rd stint) on a much lighter car with no fuel-saving-modes.
I really do think the 'alternative' strategy (which IMO was clearly dicussed before the race) gave him the best chance on beating Lewis - or at the very least, not a distinct disadvantage.
The reason you do it like this is to make sure that the final stint is short, and hence that you're able to drive hard and fast, happy in the knowledge that the tyres don't have to last. There's no point doing this strategy if you then have to conserve tyres in the final stint.Sevach wrote:The alternative strategy wasn't a bad call in itself, it's execution was a bit lacking however imo.
No reason to wait 2 laps to pit, all this accomplished was awarding Lewis Hamilton an extra 3s lead.
And given that Nico did 21 laps in stint 1 (on his used soft) i don't understand why he was still on primes at the time of the safety car, doing a long stint 2 only gave Hamilton the chance to do more laps on the faster tyre.
Nico's engineer should've called for pit about 20 laps to the end and forced Hamilton to react.
Of course the SC played it right into Rosberg's hands, but without it i don't think his strategy was gonna work due to small errors.
beelsebob wrote: The reason you do it like this is to make sure that the final stint is short, and hence that you're able to drive hard and fast, happy in the knowledge that the tyres don't have to last. There's no point doing this strategy if you then have to conserve tyres in the final stint.
They reconned that the softer tyres were worth 0.65 a lap. Hamilton was lapping on average 0.3 quicker, which means that Rosberg's better setup was worth 0.35 a lap. That implies that Rosberg would have lapped on average a second a lap quicker. So in fact, he would have arrived behind Hamilton, in DRS range with 3 laps to go – just in time to make a final charge.Sevach wrote:He wasn't gonna make 10s in 15 laps either...beelsebob wrote: The reason you do it like this is to make sure that the final stint is short, and hence that you're able to drive hard and fast, happy in the knowledge that the tyres don't have to last. There's no point doing this strategy if you then have to conserve tyres in the final stint.
Watching the race i could see that they needed to make a move and fast, each lap they didn't make the call Rosberg's job was becoming more and more unlikely.
Code: Select all
Rosberg Hamilton Gap 17 1:41.455 17 1:41.802 0.550 18 1:42.587 18 1:42.621 0.516 19 1:43.965 19 P 1:46.545 -2.064 20 1:41.442 20 1:59.311 -19.933 21 P 1:44.439 21 1:39.765 -15.259 22 2:01.019 22 1:39.666 6.094 23 1:39.886 23 1:40.357 5.623 24 1:40.178 24 1:39.743 6.058 Taken from www.fia.com